is uv filter really needed????
- Thread starter nannan82
- Start date
- Status
Not a must to have but for me it is as it also protects my front lens element against any damages.
Cost varies from brand-to-brand. A Hoya standard one is around $10+ while a B+W MRC UV-Haze one is around $60+. But heard now B+W's prices have gone up.
1. If you would prefer some protection, buy a filter.
2. If you are a purist and would prefer the best results with every shot, do not use a filter.
2 schools of thought, 2 sides with strong, rational arguments. It's up to you to decide.
58mm UV/clear/protection filters range from S$10 to well over S$50. If you want a decent brand, go for Hoya. Feeling rich? Nikon NC filter or B+W.
2. If you are a purist and would prefer the best results with every shot, do not use a filter.
2 schools of thought, 2 sides with strong, rational arguments. It's up to you to decide.
58mm UV/clear/protection filters range from S$10 to well over S$50. If you want a decent brand, go for Hoya. Feeling rich? Nikon NC filter or B+W.
I will say no cos not comfortable. HAHAHAHA! :sweat:
My photo looks a little washed out if i dun have the uv filter on. Seriously, I'm looking to buy a uv filter too. Damaged mine like last year when I accidentally dropped my camera. UV filter takes 90% damage. Lens takes 10% damage. Trust me it's worth it. It's either a double digit thing or three to four digit thing.
Excellent advice! Also, it depends what sort of lens you are using. Eg, it does not make sense to me to get a $60 B+W filter for a 50mm f1.8 lens. If the lens is damaged/scratched, get a new one. For a 17-55, the considerations are quite different...
It's definitely needed if you want to achieve really good ghosting and flare effects when shooting under certain conditions. Nothing beats the flare of a $10 no-name filter. Secondly, a filter allows you to be careless with your camera. Something bumping against the lens? No worries, the filter will catch it and for $10 you'll get the next. Being careful is kiasu.
[May contain traces of irony.]
[May contain traces of irony.]
nothing is ever really needed.
if you want to have it, there is nothing wrong, just make sure you understand the effects that may come with using it.
in any case, the glass in lenses was NOT designed to be used with filters, i highly doubt they were tested and researched with a filter (cheap or expensive) on top. so the best performance is achieved without uv filters.
For me it is cheaper to change a damaged/broken UV filter than a lens.... Hence why take the risk....
There will never be a consensus on this.
Use whatever makes you comfortable. If you have qualms about possible IQ degradation, shoot without it. But if you use one, as was said, get a good filter.
Ryan
Use whatever makes you comfortable. If you have qualms about possible IQ degradation, shoot without it. But if you use one, as was said, get a good filter.
Ryan
For me it is cheaper to change a damaged/broken UV filter than a lens.... Hence why take the risk....
How cheap is it to go back and take the shots again cause of some nice flare?
I like this analogy about condoms, it's the same idea behind: know what you are doing and be alert.
How cheap is it to go back and take the shots again cause of some nice flare?
For non-paid event whereby, you don't need to deliver your shots. I don't usually take out my UV filter. Plus I have a lens hood on 90% of the time, flaring is more or less "controlled"... Of course if necessary I could always PP off the flare.... :bsmilie:
Last edited:
I was listening to a podcast about photography and this is the strategy that a professional photographer uses.
He basically uses the UV filter as sort of a "see-through" lens cap. If there is something that catches his eye. He just brings the camera up and shoot. If he has time after that .. he will take the filter off and then shoot it without the filter for best effect. In fact he apparently does not use a lens cap since he feels he might miss moments if the lens cap is on and he has to spend time removing it.
I think for the most part this is the most balanced between protection and quality that I have found. If you have time to set up the shot nicely and u know it is going to a great shot .. remove the filter and shoot it.
He basically uses the UV filter as sort of a "see-through" lens cap. If there is something that catches his eye. He just brings the camera up and shoot. If he has time after that .. he will take the filter off and then shoot it without the filter for best effect. In fact he apparently does not use a lens cap since he feels he might miss moments if the lens cap is on and he has to spend time removing it.
I think for the most part this is the most balanced between protection and quality that I have found. If you have time to set up the shot nicely and u know it is going to a great shot .. remove the filter and shoot it.
And does shooting thru a dirty or dusty filter help in any way?? You'd still need to KEEP it as clean as possible. I'd rather snap off the lens cap or keep it off when I'm on the move and shooting....
- Status
